This is a good rule:
"You can change any rule in the game, as long as all the player's agree to it, and it remains consistent for the entire game."

This is a good rule too:
"The GM can change any rule in the game, at any time."

As long as all the player's understand which of these two rules the game is using.

Quote from: StuartAs long as all the player's understand which of these two rules the game is using.

Well that's why they've read the book, right?  Or been tutored in the rules?

Quote from: RedFoxWell that's why they've read the book, right? Or been tutored in the rules?

My interest in this is largely around whether to include a rule of this nature in my book or not.

Quote from: TonyLBSo ... what about the people who play RPGs by the rules, and have fun doing so?  Is their experience compatible with the claim that rules can never work as written?

I think that Hero, D&D 3.5, and Warhammer FRP can be used as-is and produce a fun game.  I've played at least "as written" sessions using all of those systems and was happy with them.

In my experience, the keys to having fun using the rules as-is are (A) liking the range of results the rules produce and (B) the GM understaning how to use the rules so they don't have to fudge results to, for example, keep the PCs alive or challenge them.

When I was on the Fudge mailing list, it seemed like the solution a lot of people offered to making the rules work a certain way (when other people would ask) was to sprinkle around more Fudge points.  In essence, that was saying that the way to fix results you don't like is to let the players and GM change the results at will.  Arguably, that was done by the rules, but I disagreed.  

My primary group's solution for a long-term heroic fantasy Fudge campaign was to tune the system to produce the sorts of results that we wanted and to discuss how to set difficulties with the GM to produce the feel that we wanted.  As a result, despite getting 1 Fudge point a game session and being allowed to spend up to 2 Fudge points a game session (8-12 hours) to adjust results, most players didn't use them all and we probably would have done just fine without having them at all (when my PC died, I refused to spend Fudge points to change the result).  

In fact, I don't think we've ever played a Fudge game where the players felt they needed more Fudge points than that and plenty of Fudge games where the players rarely or never used them.

If players are playing a game that has Fudge points that let them modify the results and they choose not to, I take that as a pretty good sign that they are generally quite happy with the results the system is producing.

Quote from: TonyLBAre you talking about a game where storytelling (in its entirety) emerges as the result of the rules, rather than being the method by which the players impact the rules?
[Example deleted, because I'm not sure the categories above are what I'm talking about. They might, I'm just not sure.]

Basically I see the need for fudging comes from times when the players go to the rules and the rules spit out something they really, really don't like. Maybe it's nonsensical, or it simply kills the drama of the game. Critical hit from the kobold on the first round of Scene One kind of thing.

But going to the rules isn't always necessary. For example if the game doesn't have a rule that says when to roll for outdoor encounters, you don't have to roll. If you do roll, and you get a pack of wolves capable of tearing apart the first-level party on its way to the dungeon, the rules don't necessarily say the wolves have to attack. Maybe the party just sees them feasting on caribou.

On the other hand you may have a game that says "for each day spent in the wilderness, roll once on the encounter table based on terrain", and then under "wolves", it says "wolves always attack when encountered". Now you've got trouble, if the group doesn't like wolf fights, because they're going to get one sooner or later. The rules don't work as written.

Next assume we don't mind encountering wolves, we like fighting them, but we hate being severely maimed on the way to the dungeon. So we roll on the encounter table, we get wolves, and somehow we decide to fight them. Maybe the GM says they're feasting on caribou but the party attacks anyway. Unfortunately the rules specify that wolves will fight to the death when attacked, the combat procedures are very clear, and there's no "fudge point" system to mitigate the effects of chance. So when someone in the party fumbles, and a wolf also gets in a lucky shot, the party is now short a magic user and a thief. Once again, the rules don't work as written. (Note: we like fighting wolves, but we hate being severely maimed on the way to the dungeon.)

So, how to have rules that "always work"? Leave out sections that force events we don't like. Substitute discretion in the initiation of rules, whether informally shared, held by a single person, or mediated by "meta-rules". And assume that the use of discretion will lead to the group, collectively, avoiding use of the rules when the rules have a chance of ruining the game. Typified by the philosophy, "Don't roll dice unless you're willing to live with the outcome." Also by the idea of negotiated stakes-setting.

Or, substitute discretion in outcome of rules, again in the same fashion, with the same assumption. Typified by abstracted damage as in Heroquest. (I don't know the game well, but I think I have enough of a sense of it to say that if the group really isn't happy with, e.g., a TPK, they can turn it into a party capture without violating the rules.) Also by narration-trading.

I don't consider this a trivial assumption, that passing large amounts of responsibility off to the players is going to work. It won't appeal to people who want their rules to operate on the level of a simulation of causality. Nor does it guarantee that the group as a whole will enjoy the method used for applying discretion. But it does work for some groups.

Quote from: TonyLBOver in Where (sp) you there when the swine-ified your game?, J Arcane wrote:So ... what about the people who play RPGs by the rules, and have fun doing so?  Is their experience compatible with the claim that rules can never work as written?

Bad question.

Many games have rules that allow the rules to change. In many poker games, the dealer can call the rules for each hand and make up rules ("Threes are wild").

In more formal games such as Nomic and rules-sets like, oh, the Constitution, the rules can be changed as well.

The idea that static rules is some measure of quality or that dynamic rules-sets are somehow inferrior to static ones is pure superstition and suggest a failure to understand the nature of rules-sets and games.

If a game as a Golden Rule/Rule 0, and the GM invokes it, that's no more or less against the "rules" than applying damage points to hitpoints.

Cheers,
-E.

Elliot's got it.

-E, I think the difference between self-altering and static rules systems is indisputable, whether or not it's a measure of quality. Also I strongly suspect that self-altering rules systems ultimately depend, to a high degree, on trust placed on a human judicial role, OR they're subject to self-contradiction and breakdown...or both, as in the case of Nomic. (Nomic is won by causing a contradiction, but even there the judicial role can skew the result.)

As well, dynamic rules that employ human interpretation as an "escape clause"--such as Constitutional law--generally try to minimize the areas where human interpretation has to be invoked, as well as providing clear principles to guide interpretation. The goal is to make the judge accountable to the interests of society as a whole. (With law, mainly by making judgments objective and predictable, which supports the goals of fairness and order.)

The weight placed on human discretion to operate in an accountable fashion can be seen as a measure of trust and faith. Trust in the human judge to try to rule with integrity, and faith in the human judge's ability to do so. There's a continuum here; at the extreme we have complete freeform under absolute GM authority. It works, sure, if there's enough trust and faith, and the GM is good enough.

Reduce any of those properties (trust, faith, and judicial ability), and there's a greater need for static rules to circumscribe and balance the power of judgeship.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen-E, I think the difference between self-altering and static rules systems is indisputable, whether or not it's a measure of quality. Also I strongly suspect that self-altering rules systems ultimately depend, to a high degree, on trust placed on a human judicial role, OR they're subject to self-contradiction and breakdown...or both, as in the case of Nomic. (Nomic is won by causing a contradiction, but even there the judicial role can skew the result.)

As well, dynamic rules that employ human interpretation as an "escape clause"--such as Constitutional law--generally try to minimize the areas where human interpretation has to be invoked, as well as providing clear principles to guide interpretation. The goal is to make the judge accountable to the interests of society as a whole. (With law, mainly by making judgments objective and predictable, which supports the goals of fairness and order.)

The weight placed on human discretion to operate in an accountable fashion can be seen as a measure of trust and faith. Trust in the human judge to try to rule with integrity, and faith in the human judge's ability to do so. There's a continuum here; at the extreme we have complete freeform under absolute GM authority. It works, sure, if there's enough trust and faith, and the GM is good enough.

Reduce any of those properties (trust, faith, and judicial ability), and there's a greater need for static rules to circumscribe and balance the power of judgeship.

That is an absolutely beautiful summary, Elliot.  Pins down exactly the importance of the GM, and his role in things.  This was what I was trying to get it in my post above, with describing the GM as a "judge", and mentioning declaring something "unconstitutional".  

The judge is an authority yes, and is often called upon to make the final decision in conflicts or confusion, but he does so because he has the appointed trust of the players.  

Of the players, by the players, and for the players.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen-E, I think the difference between self-altering and static rules systems is indisputable, whether or not it's a measure of quality. Also I strongly suspect that self-altering rules systems ultimately depend, to a high degree, on trust placed on a human judicial role, OR they're subject to self-contradiction and breakdown...or both, as in the case of Nomic. (Nomic is won by causing a contradiction, but even there the judicial role can skew the result.)

As well, dynamic rules that employ human interpretation as an "escape clause"--such as Constitutional law--generally try to minimize the areas where human interpretation has to be invoked, as well as providing clear principles to guide interpretation. The goal is to make the judge accountable to the interests of society as a whole. (With law, mainly by making judgments objective and predictable, which supports the goals of fairness and order.)

The weight placed on human discretion to operate in an accountable fashion can be seen as a measure of trust and faith. Trust in the human judge to try to rule with integrity, and faith in the human judge's ability to do so. There's a continuum here; at the extreme we have complete freeform under absolute GM authority. It works, sure, if there's enough trust and faith, and the GM is good enough.

Reduce any of those properties (trust, faith, and judicial ability), and there's a greater need for static rules to circumscribe and balance the power of judgeship.

No question that dynamic and static rules sets are different; I never meant to imply otherwise (the nature of the different labels indicates a difference, even if nothing else does).

But the assertion that -- by itself -- the static/dynamic nature of a set is correllated with quality is something I just don't see.

As to your second point: Completely Agree -- trust in the judicial / executive power is *essential* for highly discretionary games.

But when trust *exists* that kind of power isn't a patch; it's a potent tool for meeting shared goals like versimilitude and game-integrity.

Here's how I look at it: You framed Constitutional law as "minimizing" judicial discretion. To me, that would mean structuring the law so that there is as absolutely little areas of judge-decision in the system as there can be.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm out of my area of expertise here, but that's not what I see in a judicial system -- or in the Games-With-Rule-0 games that I play.

My understanding of law (inexpert, probably wrong) is that there are fundamentally at least 2 approaches to law: one which tries to enumerate every possible situation and provide a wirtten down guidance / ruling for it, and another based on precident and judicial interpretation.

In the US, we use the second one.  I... (jump in and correct me here, folks) believe that Other Places (Europe) have a more rules-based approach.

Precident law (to my understanding, caveats & disclaimers apply) isn't inherently inferrior to fully-articulated rules-set. But it does rely on a fundamental trust in the judiciary.

So I would say that precident / US Constitutional Law *doesn't* MINIMIZE judicial discretion... it OPTIMIZES it, meaning that it makes room for it in certain areas where it's presumed to be the most valuable.

...

So back to games, where I can talk with more certainty:

If your game has a Rule 0, and relies on GM adjudication, then -- yeah -- you ought to elect a GM you trust.

Period.

If that's not an option, then you'll want a game that does *minimize* GM rulings.

A lot of folks have had apocolyptically bad experiences with GM discretion. In some cases, they've had these experiences across a variety of GM's.

This could, indeed, lead one to desire a game that minimizes GM power / discretion.

But I don't think that's the only conclusion one might reach and I don't think that minimizing the GM's rule comes at "no cost"

GM's bring a lot of things I like to a game. Rule 0 allows a GM the ultimate authority to do anything that's necessary to provide the best possible gaming experience.

In the hands of a GM I trust, that kind of "executive power" isn't a patch; it's a bonus. I don't expect the GM to override rules for "narrative" purposes, or to kill (or save from death) PC's or anything -- although that's within the mandate. I expect the GM to use that authority to meet goals I share such as versimilitude and game-integrity.

I don't generally play with GM's I don't trust (exception: getting to know a new group; during that phase, I limit my committment to the group until I have a level of comfort that it's going to work. IME it almost always does, or I bail out very quickly. Another exception: Con games, where the same limits apply).

So anyway: I agree with your point about trust, whole-heartedly... it's a key element for games with lots of judicial discretion and places more emphasis on the "who GM's" decision.

But when that trust exists, Rule-0 doesn't indicate a broken or low-quality rules-set. Just a different approach.

Cheers,
-E.